After reading numerous Statements on the Death of George Tiller from high profile pro-life leaders which said we must strongly condemn such senseless acts of violence, killing is never the answer, and anyone who is truly pro-life will be saddened by Dr. Tillers death I had to ask myself one question.

If a doctor went mad and began a murderous rampage killing infants in a hospital maternity ward and a good citizen stopped him with deadly force would people condemn that concerned citizen as a murderer and call his actions a senseless act of violence? That would be unthinkable. He would be extolled as brave American hero who saved babies from a deranged mass murderer.

However after the shooting of Dr. Tiller Ive learned most people, even those who are pro-life, do not speak well of individuals who stop abortion doctors with deadly force, even though these doctors are serial child killers.

Why do these two scenarios evoke such different responses from people if children are being killed by a doctor in both cases?

The best I understand it is the children abortionists kill are the "undesirables" in our society, just like the Jews were in Hitlers Germany. Human beings who are unwanted, dehumanized, and stripped of civil rights. Second, people do not speak well of someone who uses deadly force to stop an abortionist because it is legal for a doctor to kill these children, just like it was legal to kill Jews.

Although it was legal to kill Jews in Hitler's Germany it was not right, and the Nazis were murderers even though their laws vindicated them. Importantly, the doctors in the death camps were murderers not merely because a Tribunal said so, those doctors were murders because they committed widespread inhumane atrocities, barbaric crimes against humanity, and systematic state-sponsored extermination of millions of people.

Today abortion doctors engage in the state-sponsored extermination of millions of human beings, widespread inhumane atrocities, and barbaric crimes against humanity. In the name of civility and in an effort to save children from mass murder at the hands of an abortion doctor I do not condemn Scott Roeder for stopping a serial child killer with deadly force, but extol him as a brave American hero.

In order to get significant restrictions on abortion again (which would almost certainly need a constitutional amendment) an amnesty would be a virtual political necessity, and the new law would have to go very easy on the mothers.

We live in a society where half the population finds killing of children in the womb tolerable or acceptable, and the majority of its elite even find it desirable. I think a better analogy would be if you happened upon a cannibalistic society. Would it be better to gun down all those murderous savages, or turn them to a more civilized way of thinking?

The only beings that should get to decide “who gets killed” are God, and the intended victim of a would-be heinous criminal (murderer, rapist, and such). This is why guns are so handy, just like fire extingushers-!

14
posted on 06/07/2009 11:44:05 AM PDT
by imjimbo
(The constitution SHOULD be our "gun permit")

The evil has metastasized enough that, over a decade ago, a conference of state supreme courts agreed that it would carry on Roe v. Wade if Congress did something like that. State constitutional amendments would then be needed.

It’s because the pro-life movement is no different, fundamentally, from the pro-choice movement; it believes a woman has a right to choose. We can persuade a woman not to make that choice, we can console and help her with healing after she’s made that choice, but we can’t obstruct her from making that choice. That’s her “right” and it’s protected by law. If that weren’t true, and pro-lifers really believed their own rhetoric, they would be blockading every abortion clinic in the country.

16
posted on 06/07/2009 11:44:44 AM PDT
by mike182d
("Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?")

If a doctor went mad and began a murderous rampage killing infants in a hospital maternity ward and a good citizen stopped him with deadly force would people condemn that concerned citizen as a murderer and call his actions a senseless act of violence?

That is fine with me, we have to start somewhere, and putting SCOTUS in its place will help with several issues.

BTW, Kansas has horrible abortion laws, the most liberal and least restrictive in the country.

Whenever we try to restrict abortion, we have to fight the “purist” prolifers who want an outright ban but support almost nothing else, and we ALSO have to fight the liars on the pro death side who claim that almost ANY restriction would go against Roe v. Wade or Doe V. Bolton.

Getting rid of those court cases, as an excuse, would really move the ball forward.

Tiller wasn't killed for having committed abortions in the past, he was killed because he was unrepentant and had every intention of continuing. That changes the dynamic of the discussion because it's not about "justice" for past crimes, it's about saving the lives of people in danger of being killed. Yes, God is the only judge of our past sins, but if you see the life of one human being threatened by another, it can be argued that there's justification for acting in the victim's defense.

I'm not saying Tiller's killing was a good thing or justified; I'm just saying it raises questions the pro-life movement refuses to address. If their rhetoric is taken to it's logical conclusion, it could be argued that Tiller's killing was justified.

If the pro-life movement doesn't agree, it needs to tone down it's rhetoric and reformulate its argument.

24
posted on 06/07/2009 11:55:38 AM PDT
by mike182d
("Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?")

Tiller was NOT “elderly” so why claim that he was?
He was still a practicing “doctor” of death.
If he was old enough to kill others, under the law, do not try to gin up sympathy for him by calling him “elderly” it does not wash.

Tiller stayed in business because he had an abundance of Liberals who were willing to seek him out and pay for his services. In certain ways, he was like a prostitute. He was an opportunist with no moral boundaries that was willing to get rich on the money of Liberals.

There will always be people like Tiller in society as long as there are a customer base willing to pay the price for the service. Our opinions do not count.

We are a nation of laws and we must work within the system, even if it takes a hundred years to change a bad law. We should never, never ever ever resort to taking a life.

We should remember the words from the bible, “The meek shall inherit the earth.” and we should be meek like the Christians who quietly prayed while they were eaten by lions in the Colosseum, or meek like Dr. Martin Luther King and the marchers of the civil rights movement.

Taking the law into one’s own hands accomplishes nothing. It doesn’t help your cause. It only gives the pro-abortion crowd ammunition to use against you. Like they have been using this abortion dr.s murder.

ONLY if that law stated that the Supreme Court, and the lower courts, had NO jurisdiction over the matter.

And, politically, this is probably not the right stand to take, in that the public does tend to support abortion in the “tough cases” and it is perfectly moral to address political reality, in the law.

That is best done at the state level.

More to the point, we should avoid federal murder charges, and let the states deal with regulation of doctors and the prosecution of illegal abortions.

We do that by simply telling the Fed courts to butt out, and the we craft our own laws, at the State level, the way our founders intended.

Many of the founders thought slavery was a horrible evil, but they realized that they did not have the power to stop slavery, at our founding, and instead put the new nation on a path that would, eventually, bring the matter to a head.

Recognizing reality, and trying to work within the law, does not make any of us accomplices to the evil involved.

I have pondered the same question. If one was to stop with lethal force if required, a person from harming a baby, it would be “right” and probably lawful. On the other hand, Dr. Tiller “performing medical procedures” (killing unborn humans at the mothers/parents request)is not right, but it is lawful.

Killing Tiller because he performs abortions (murder if you will) is not legal. Is it “right” based on the first scenario?

The guy who decided to stop Tiller had to make that choice on his own, and live with consequences of an “unlawful” act.

The unborn are the only ones w/o a personal voice or choice. What would they be saying if we could ask them?

Seems we have fallen under the rule of man, rather than the rule of law.

There’s a big difference between a doctor who went “mad” and started killing and Mr Tiller.Sudden “madness” can,I believe,be biological in nature and,thus,be witnessed with sadness rather than anger or contempt.Mr Tiller,OTOH,wasn’t “mad”.He was simply a psychopath,utterly devoid of conscience.A lot like Mao...Stalin...Pol Pot...Hitler.I do not shed a single tear at the passing of Mr Tiller.I only regret that it was a bullet,rather than a lightening bolt,a flesh eating bacteria,or a particularly ugly and painful form of cancer,that did him in.

However, at our founding, as Mark Levin makes clear in his book, the founders made the slave trade illegal and formed a system of government that, eventually, outlawed the practice.

That's also because they realized they needed the full support of the all the colonies in order for the Revolution to succeed. Banning slavery outright would have stifled that effort. The Revolution was more important, and then the rest could be worked out later.

43
posted on 06/07/2009 12:15:49 PM PDT
by mike182d
("Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?")

My thought was that it was a good trade, giving up ones life to stop that man from continuing to murder babies. If I were on the jury, and was an honest judge, I would have to say “guilty” if he was the triggerman. But at the same time, I would stand and salute him to the hangman’s rope. That man needed killing.

some people just need killing....as the old saying goes.. Anyone wringing their hands over the death of Tiller is silly. How many others were killed the same day...7 just in Chicago alone...murder started in the Garden of Eden, no one should be shocked at it...Grieve if it a loved one of course. But Tiller was just one many that day...He's not worth the print the MSM is giving him.

Laws written by dictators and tyrants (or judges) are usually asinine..

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.